Monday, February 8, 2016

FEB 8, 2016 LENR ON THE DAY OF TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIMISM.

MOTTO

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. (Ansel Adams)

DAILY NOTESa) Personal anniversaryFor me today it is the 30th anniversary of the Technological Optimism Day- when I created my alter-ego, Yves Henri Prum.The quote by Arthur C. Clarke fits well the idea; I have promised to Arthur that one day Cold Fusion will be a real technology; he lived not enough to see this- I still hope I will.The other quotation fits LENR disturbingly well.b) Solving the 1 bilion $ donation for PdD problem

Rd Storms who really and creatively cares for the future of the field was the first to answer the question of 1 billion US$ funding of LENR

Peter, you ask - What will happen if Bill Gates and his group will donate a billion of $ to PdD?

I believe 90% of the donated money would be wasted because no agreement exists among the influencers about an effective approach or even about how LENR actually works. Lack of focus and money over the years have resulted only in a collection of conflicting opinions.

Before any money is granted, I would suggest an institute be created that would organize a series of symposium. The experts and other interested people would be assembled and required to work out their differences for as long as it took to reach common understanding. Of course, the total cost plus an honorarium to the participants would be covered by Gates.

In the process, leaders would emerge who would be put in charge of distributing the grant money. The debate would be recorded and be used to make clear who has the best ideas and where the focus should be applied. Right now, only ignorance and conflict guide the field.This was followed by vivid discussions- I will report about the conclusions.However today, Storms has added something very important:We need a Copenhagen Conference in this field. In the early days of quantum theory, very little agreement existed between the scientists. To resolve this problem, all the people involved in this subject were invited to Copenhagen to resolve their conflicts. This meeting helped reveal a path to a more effective approach to study the subject. Fortunately, this approach could be taken because someone had the money to encourage the scientists to resolve their different opinions, unlike what is happening in LENR. I'm not suggesting total agreement be sought or obtained, which is impossible. I suggesting improved understand be obtained, which is possible.

This idea generates questions: WHERE? HOW? WHEN?

To start speaking realistically about it, to enumerate potential obstacles would be scientific defeatism. The Internet has endless possibilities.

"We generated motional entanglement between vibrational states of two spatially separated, millimeter-sized diamonds at room temperature. [20] Unlike stars and fission reactors, LENRs do not emit any deadly MeV radiation; they occur in laboratory devices as well as at low rates in Nature elsewhere on Earth ? In LENRs, star-like nucleosynthesis of elements occurs under mild macroscopic conditions; e.g. at as little as room temperature and atmospheric pressure. [21] So we get room temperature superconductivity and macroscopic containers of liquid that demonstrate non-locality. [16]"

10 comments:

I think today's blog carried a very important message. "We need a Copenhagen Conference in this field."I think that is correct. The problem is that it cost money to travel and it cost money to arrange a meeting. First of all that eliminate people depending on their finances not on ability to contribute. Secondly, such large groupings often get dominated by those that put in the most politically correct ideas - then it gets watery.I think it would be possible to arrange this "Copenhagen meeting" as a webinar. Rather a series of webinar. The format is flexible (one hour a day for a month or two hours a day two days a week or . . . ). The cost is minimal and an 'attendant fee' of $5 will easily cover the cost. Thus everybody can participate.I do not mean that all meetings should start as brainstorming. Most meeting should be set up with a principal speaker able and willing to stick out his head and take constructive critic.The only problem I see is that there might be difficulties to attract people already ahead. A. Rossi, Dr. Mills, Professor Holmlid, etc. Maybe a slightly higher fee and invite them as guest speakers. I am sure others can contribute better solutions to make sure we have all aboard.

Coming from a career of commercial engineering, I can tell you one of the biggest impediments of such a Copenhagen Conference is protection of individual and corporate IP. One day LENR will comprise a huge business - perhaps the biggest in history. How will those contributing at a Copenhagen Conference protect their IP rights and those of their corporations while contributing in the true spirit of such a conference?

The granting of patents was meant to be a means to allow technological information to spread - to avoid the need for secrecy. However, before a patent application is filed, today's patent system creates a burden of secrecy to protect the individual/corporation's ability to be granted a patent. Since the USPTO is generally rejecting LENR patent applications, they have created a huge build-up/backlog of secrecy among LENR scientists - particularly ones that are funded by corporations. Historically, the USPTO held a policy of letting patents issue whose technology was inadequately proven to or understood by the examiner; presuming that the marketplace would make such patents worthless if they did not work. Today, for some reason, the USPTO seems inclined to only allow patents recognized by the examiner as being valid, valuable technology. Given the need for LENR by the world, and the obvious negative effect on the development of the technology caused by preventing issuance of LENR patents, I surmise that this situation may have been intentionally created. We see in the recent issue 18 of JCMNS that it may be possible to stimulate a LENR detonation - and it is not the first time I have heard of such experiments. Could this technology roadblocking by the USPTO be intended to slow the development of LENR due to anticipated dangers of its weaponization? [I admit this makes me sound like a conspiracy nut.]

Regardless of the cause of their actions, the USPTO is hindering the kind of technical exchanges that would be desired in a Copenhagen Conference.

Yes Bob, I agree with you it is an obstacle. My personal opinion is that patents are just a bureaucratic illusion. In the end it is just a question of who has more money. They can use them to defend their own or break others patents.I am not much into the conspiracy idea but the process certainly gives our governing body the ability to conspire. Thus protecting us in the name of the best for us all.:(However, I think a conference of the type I suggested with many sessions will sift out valuable cornerstones. This is more true if Rossi can show success in his yearlong test and has COP that makes economical sense. IMHO it sounds as if Rossi and IH still have theoretical issues to be resolved. Thus there are two possible ways to compete with him. One is to come up with a theory that is fully covering LENR and the other is to use his technology and engineer a better solution. (Yes, there are many other possibilities but few constructive. ) I would hope that in such a situation, it would benefit everybody work together and exchange information.I am sure it is not simple. I do think that this is a way forward. From a conference of this type small flexible organizations can be formed between entities with complementary resources - I believe.

Within the company where I worked, the company had a patent committee that decided which written disclosures to pursue as patent applications and the inventors to be included - it was like a mini-patent office. It also created the same idea secrecy within the company to protect the inventor's right to be the registered inventor of his idea.

From time to time, the company had need for technology brainstorming to create advanced patent applications for a new technology. I ran more than one of these internal sessions. The way I found to keep the ideas freely flowing was to record the session, so that if an idea emerged that was to be pursued, you could easily go back through the recording to thread out who provided the key patent-able claims for the application. This worked well, with no one feeling robbed of their idea in the process.

Even with full recording, it would still be problematic for a Copenhagen Convention - web or otherwise. In my meetings, all of the contributors were under duty of confidence to the company. If doing this in a public conference, even if the contributor(s) could be identified for the record, from a patent standpoint, they would have 1 year to file from date of public disclosure, and many countries have the rule of first to file. At best, the record of the event may categorize the ideas as publicly disclosed prior art and not patent-able (but that is grounds for non-disclosure for many in the first place).

As a thought experiment, ask yourself if IH/Leonardo would allow Rossi to come to this conference and freely and completely describe his work (even if Rossi were so inclined). I don't think so.

From where I see this, it isn't really doable in the spirit of Copenhagen or its progenitor the Solvay conferences (esp the 5th). The gatherings were mostly if not all theoretical physicists and it happened in an era of great change fueled by extraordinary sequence of advances where there was a lot of 'connecting the dots' taking place (late 1800s to early 1900s). It was an extraordinary period in science.

The people involved were associated with the leading thought centers of their day. The Copenhagen gathering was a later flowon triggered by disagreements coming out of the 5th Solvay conference of 1927. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference

The equivalent of Ernest Solvay might be a Bill Gates or Gates like figure.

But who would get invited ? - Solvay & Copenhagen were invitation only.

They were as already mentioned, targeted at theorists.

With the changes were are grappling with today in LENR (PdD - NiH) & now Hydrino theory, the issues are very different.

Today it is about patents, implementation, conflicting theoretical debates, disputes as to the Nuclear nature of the phenomenon.

I just can't see who decides who should get invited and the extent it should be by invitation and who gets chosen. It is too much of a minefield. Anyway, isn't ICCF already fulfilling part of such a goal ?.

The Rossi patent is moot.1. It contains no teaching.2. One skilled in the art has no directives.3. Rossi has no secret knowledge even if he agreed to share.4. Rossi has been misleading the LENR community for six straight years.

Given the USPTO's LENR policy at the moment, the Rossi/IH patent strategy may be to patent around the core LENR technology. For example, if you invented a gasoline engine powered car, but the USPTO would not allow patent claims on the gasoline engine, what can you do? You create instead a patent portfolio around everything else about the car: the wheels, the steering wheel, the brakes, etc.; which the USPTO will allow. The goal is to prevent unlicensed duplication of your technology once it has gone to product and becomes susceptible to back-engineering. Having a patent portfolio surrounding that which the USPTO will not allow, you can still protect your product. Obtaining a defining patent around the core of your technology is highly desirable because a single such patent can provide relatively broad protection. But, in the end, a business of any size will need a patent portfolio anyway to protect its products.

With such a strategy, it is not necessary to teach or claim the essence of the core.